Slashdot Mirror
Happy 300th Birthday Benjamin Franklin
Guinnessy writes "Benjamin Franklin was born on 17 January 1706 in Boston, Massachusetts. Franklin was a man of diverse talents: publisher, inventor, ambassador, politician, wit with some human frailities says NPR. In Physics Today, Philip Krider presents Franklin's work on electricity and the development of the lightning rod, work whose fame helped Franklin obtain aid from the French against the British. In the same magazine, Joost Mertens considers Franklin's explorations of the calming effects of oil on water. Those investigations, it turns out, had a less than calming effect on Dutch scholars. Philadelphia is planning a series of events celebratng Franklin's life throughtout the year."
and kiss your $100 bills!
-Sj53
Without Benjamin Franklin's entreaties to the French for aid in the American Revolutionary War, the Continental Army would certainly have suffered defeat at the hands of the British. For a man to tirelessly crusade for his country like Franklin did at his age and in a time when travel was no simple matter is astounding. Anyone with a quarter of that man's patriotism, devotion, and tenacity could move mountains.
This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
Some great quotes from Poor Richard's Almanack:
He that falls in love with himself will have no rivals.
Setting too good an example is a kind of slander seldom forgiven.
Experience keeps a dear school, yet fools will learn in no other.
Write with the learned, pronounce with the vulgar.
Necessity never made a good bargain.
Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.
Dost thou love life? Then do not squander time; for that's the stuff life is made of.
If your Riches are yours, why don't you take them with you to t'other World?
A good conscience is a continual Christmas.
God heals, and the doctor takes the fee.
Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.
Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe, seldom executed.
If you'd know the value of money, go and borrow some.
When befriended, remember it. When you befriend, forget it.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
And certainly NEVER do it in front of a Web cam.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
After all I don't see the little Google doodle commemorating it, therefore it never happened.
- A Message From The President Of Google Groupies
He was also one of the first vocal proponents of the separation of church and state. It's because of him that "We hold these truths to be self-evident" instead of the original text, which read "We hold these truths sacred."
E pluribus unum
Franklin and Marshall college in Lancaster PA is having an exhibit on him this thursday. Ive been looking forward to this for a long time.
http://fandm.edu/ben300/exhibit.php
Ben is the man. The first American, and the historical pimp.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
Anyone with a quarter of that man's patriotism, devotion, and tenacity could move mountains.
And the thought that in modern times he'd be locked up under the PATRIOT act is truly sad...
This guy's the limit!
I wonder how many brilliant ideas came about after a relaxing romp at the ol' Hellfire Club?
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
but not for The Burninator? The injustice!
Monstar L
Also of note for those who follow intellectual property issues, when he invented the "Franklin stove," he refused the offered patent preferring that the design be available to anyone.
For giving me good reason never to want to get into the life threatening sport of kite flying.
Saw this in a few press-releases, and it seems to work pretty well.
http://ben.clusty.com/
Has a neat timeline of his accomplishments and has resources for teachers and students.
Walter Isaacson's recent biography on Franklin (available virtually everywhere, including amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/074325807X/qid=11 37510251/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-5388269-4030340?n =507846&s=books&v=glance) is a broad and comprehensive study that manages to be a fairly easy read.
http://www.gophila.com/go/ben/
A scientist, an advocate of separation of church and state, an opponent of "intellectual property" (he never patented any of his inventions), and a true patriot to boot!
(I still can't believe he didn't win that "greatest American" contest the History Channel ran a while back...)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Strangely enough, a person can be a "wit"... I think it's synonymous with being "witty" in this case.
wit (3.c)
Flamebait? No. It's the truth.
He first agitated for, and then actively participated in, the armed overthrow of the government, using an army of unlawful combatants backed by a rouge state.
Franklin, along with all the great founders of the United States of America, was undoubtedly guilty of high treason. Of course, as Shakespeare observed, if it prospers none dare call it treason; so Franklin's a hero. Certainly had things gone a little differently there would today be celebrations in the honour of the brave patriot Benedict Arnold.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Happy birthday, but... I just hope the coffin is large enough to let him comfortably spin in it, as I'm sure that's what he does if he has any idea of what's going on in the US government now.
The book spends its preface on Franklin's mid-career appearance for a sort of intellectual pillory in "the cockpit" in London. The sort of public roasting one got from the establishment powers there was accepted to be the dishing of a person's public career. For Franklin that supposed disaster was a turning point; he'd been desperately trying to get the London establishment to understand the point of view of the colonies, and getting spite back for his efforts made him ask what he really was, if not a loyal subject of the King. His answer was that he was an American -- and what did that mean, exactly?
I haven't read the more popular book, but Brands's was excellent, starting with that decision to phrase it around that moment when his identity really changed. It does justice to his intellectual pursuits -- chimneys, electricity, the "harmonium" -- but it's mostly shaped by his public life, in the outlines.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I think Benjamin Franklin was very good, and I am glad to see him remembered.
... when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other ?
Something I got from the website www.politicalcompass.org/:
Q:
Which founding father said of the proposed American Constitution This is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism
A:
Benjamin Franklin in a speech to delegates to the US Constitutional Convention prior to the final vote.
- Jax
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Thankfully, his legacy now lives on with today's youth; they are reminded of the man through music videos featuring performers waving green bank notes bearing his lithograph and referencing his name. Yes, indeed, it is all about the Benjamin.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Indeed. We'd be celebrating Ben Franklin Day in the same way our friends across the pond celebrate Guy Fawkes Day.
This guy's the limit!
Backed by a red state? The Republicans backed the overthrow of legitimate goverments even then?
I'm too lazy to do the research right now, but is this the birthday in the current Gregorian calendar or the (I think) then-used Julian calendar??? In which case, when is his birthday in the other calendar system? Oh, if you want to be globalist, you can include the Chinese birthdate if you want to.
--Jim (me)
Also of note for those who follow intellectual property issues, when he invented the "Franklin stove," he refused the offered patent preferring that the design be available to anyone.
Lest anyone suddenly get the idea that Ben Franklin was an early "information wants to be free" sort of guy, don't forget that the only way he was able, in his early forties, to "retire" from the daily grind and turn his attention towards science, diplomacy, and nation-building was because he made himself relatively wealthy as a publisher. He set up printing franchises that made money off of publishing private works, and he took a share of the proceeds in his capacity as the guy helping to finance the operations and marketing thereof. He was very "modern" in that sense - a literary agent, a publisher/distributer, an investor in potentially lucrative creative material... intellectual property was exactly how he became wealthy. The "healthy and wise" part was how he lived long enough and well enough to put his proceeds to work for him, rather working for them. But without an early career in the sale of creative works, there would have been no Ben Franklin, Founding Father.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Not to mention that he'd be diametrically opposed to everything the current Administration stands for. Between the PATRIOT Act ("those who would give up essential liberty..."), "Faith-based initiatives" and the Kansas school board, and the media industry's stranglehold on copyright and patent law, he must be spinning in his grave!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
This person was not afraid of being different. He refused to conform to the 'status quo'.
He has the earmarks of a Radical Faerie.
Cleara
wish "happy birthday" to dead people?
I tell everyone that his birthday is July 3rd and they all believe me.
The podcast:l
http://www.sciencefriday.com/audio/scifriaudio.xm
The MP3:0 11325.mp3
http://libsyn.com/media/sciencefriday/scifri-2006
...because women live longer, and are more sensible, among other things .
Which is why I never visit my family for too long.
Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration, which is why engineers sometimes smell really bad.
"unlawful combatants backed by a rouge state" I always thought those states were more red than rouge in the voting maps.....
Yeah yeah yeah... patriot... inventor... blah blah blah
all great.... but my FAVORITE is Ben... the ladies man.
A woman seeing Franklin said "Sir, what would you say if you saw that belly on a lady?"
To which he replied "Madam, what would you say if I told you an hour ago it was on a lady."
Ok... can't remember exact quote.... but.... MY HERO!
Ben Franklin was much cooler than Martin Luther King Jr., I mean he discovered electricity! Why don't we have his birthday off?
And the thought that in modern times he'd be locked up under the PATRIOT act is truly sad...
Well, the government he was born under would've hanged him if they could. So being locked up in prison actually shows some progress.
"Gentleman, we must all hang together, or we will surely all hang seperately." B. Franklin
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Yes, a Rouge state, namely revolutionary france - bunch of french speaking commie-pinkos :)
James P. Barrett
No, it seems more like a French-Soviet conspiracy.
The result is that his stuff is fun, basically, instead of coming across as prating moralism from a stuffed shirt.
The contrast with today's hypocritical moral scolds -- William Bennett, we do remember your gambling habit -- couldn't be more striking. Franklin could think for himself, and his morality wasn't a matter of social conventions. (When quaker groups were agitating against slavery in 1790, Franklin backed them as one of the last acts of his public life.) Bennett et al, on the other hand, are all about reinforcing norms by buttressing them with "the accepted version" -- meaning the stale, lifeless version -- of various moral parables. Death to read to your kids, just lifeless.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
You should notice that "wit" is part of his list of talents. There are other problems with the sentence, and it could certainly be better phrased, but the writer did not omit a letter in the word "wit". I think it would read better if it were as such:
Yes, he made himself wealthy as a publisher -- by providing (and charging for) the service of making copies when the cost of doing so was not zero, as it is today. Do you know of any cases where he went after someone for reprinting something he published themselves? I don't, and that's what would be required to give evidence of him being an advocate of "Intellectual Property."
In my opinion, what he did was more akin to selling communications hardware today -- he was facilitating exchange of ideas, not setting up toll booths for them. (Incidentally, this is the reason why copyrights and patents were more reasonable ideas then than they are now.)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
he must be spinning in his grave!
Hmm, maybe we could hook up a turbine up to him and generate some electricity. That would be properly honoring Franklin's inventive spirit.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
The more I read about this man and understand what a massive impact he had on the world, the more I believe this guy was either from outer space or a time traveler or something.
He was so advanced and ahead of his time on so many aspects of our human experience that conluding that he was a mere mortal is difficult.
Happy Birthday Ben!
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
Actually, the Revolution didn't happen for a few years after the American war. France at the time was run by a bunch of decadent aristocrats, who probably wore a lot of, er, rouge...
They then found themselves with a bunch of veteran soldiers coming home having learned from their American comrades the importance of words like 'liberte', 'egalite' and 'fraternite'. Whoops.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
from "Completing the American Revolution :
"Benjamin Franklin had a personal fortune worth at least $20 million in today's money. He was a champion of the Quaker plutocrats in Philadelphia and vigorously opposed the democratic western farmers of Pennsylvania."
Why is it that you supposed "libertarians" and "freedom lovers" worship at the altar of the elite?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
...because we all know that a single Ph.D. that agrees with me is obviously more intelligent than the multitudes who disagree.
The letters back and forth with his various amours aren't explicit, but Ben was no prude, not by a mile, at any point in his life. (You're right that he was, er, active as a young man; he visited "houses of ill repute" in England.)
For that matter he married in a relatively informal way -- Deborah Reid and he sort of moved in together and presented it as a marriage, and so it was accepted as a common law thing. Not that unusual back then.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Franklin, along with all the great founders of the United States of America, was undoubtedly guilty of high treason.
And they knew that going in. Hence Franklin's quote: "We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang seperately.".
January 7 before the calander change.n _calendar.html
http://www.livescience.com/history/060104_frankli
It was Benjamin Franklin that said, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
It says something. As opposed to nothing. More information is good. Less information is bad. These are simple principles; principles to live by....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
The guy was the MacGyver of his time. Imagine what he could've done with stuff like duct tape, gasoline or a Chevy small block 350.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety will have neither liberty nor safety. -BF
Benjamin Franklin has always been at the top of my list of true heroes, even Einstein doesn't compare. No one in this day remotely compares to him as has been pointed out in the parent. He inspires the inventor and the revolutionary in me and I wish that people thought more of him than the fact he's on the 100 dollar bill. We should all take a good look at what he did, take one little piece of that and try our best to create that in our lives. For instance, he used to print revolutionary literature, so maybe we could do the same; printers are everywhere these days, and there are great topics that the general public should know about such as common law or that juries can judge the law, not just the accused or a million other topics. Ben would approve, I believe.
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
The founding fathers are rising up from their graves?!
Time to get my shotgun and LP's to kill zombie Franklin.
I've always wanted to write a book about cousin Ben. There are already a few books out there already. Still I think it would be neat to write one myself. I've done enough research on the man over the years to jusitfy it. Everybody should have a famous relative. It makes research paper ideas so much easier to come up with. :-)
They then found themselves with a bunch of veteran soldiers coming home having learned from their American comrades the importance of words like 'liberte', 'egalite' and 'fraternite'. Whoops.
To suggest that the French revolution began because of returning soldiers who'd seen it all in America would be a mistake. You want that model, go look at ancient Rome; the collapse of the Republic is punctuated by a succession of returning armies lining the halls of government and agitating for land grants. French events were a heck of a lot more complex than that, and the inheritance from America happened more in the Salons than in any military camps.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
What? A mention of the French on the front page of Slashdot and there isn't 10 posts all making the same "cheese eating surrender monkeys" joke. Half of which have been moderated up to +5 funny.
Maybe those people are too busy out eating their Freedom Fries.
"More information is good. Less information is bad."
Instead you should say:
More information is good. Misinformation is bad.
Actually I belive that you can still get the death sentence for treason today.
Freedom or George Bush
What are we come to? Even if you believed wholeheartedly in everything Reagan stood for, there's no way you could make an argument that he was anything like the epochal figure Ben Franklin was for more than one area of our national life.
I guess Reagan was at least known as a minor actor (and the McCarthyist head of the Screen Actor's Guild), so he did at least have one other mark by his name. Next to "First person to map the gulf currents" -- one of Franklin's lesser accomplishments -- how does "Bedtime for Bonzo" stack up, though?
Yeesh.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Posessing wit and being a wit are two different things.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
Not to mention that he'd be diametrically opposed to everything the current Administration stands for.
? id=110007823
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/
'Better Than Well Said'
Ben Franklin understood the need for secrecy in matters of national security.
BY PETE DU PONT
Tuesday, January 17, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
Has President Bush exceeded his constitutional authority or acted illegally in authorizing wiretaps without a warrant on calls between American citizens in the United States and people abroad who are, or are suspected of having ties to, terrorists?
Benjamin Franklin (whose 300th birthday is today) would not have thought so. In 1776 he and his four colleagues on the Continental Congress's foreign affairs committee (called the Committee of Secret Correspondence) unanimously agreed that they could not tell the Congress about the covert assistance France was giving the American Revolution, because it would be harmful to America if the information leaked, and "we find by fatal experience that Congress consists of too many members to keep secrets."
Yes. Yes you are.
// This is not a sig.
A number of US brewpubs are serving their own batches of Poor Richard's which was formulated to the researched preferences of Bejamin Franklin
FWIW: its an "Open Recipe" beer.
(mmmmmm, beeer)
Lurking in the desert
He waged verbal war via anonymous editorials in his and other papers enabling him to say things he most certainly wouldn't sign his name to. Something that sadly is no longer possible in the print media and may soon be outlawed on the internet as well.
After all, he was a geek who got laid!
That is all.
A gross simplification, and speculation to boot. Washington's war by posts had been very successful. The seige of yorktown did end the war true, and the French Fleet blockade of Yorktown was important, but let's be clear here. The British would have withdrawn from the States back up into Canada. They had been shredded by the militia down south. They would have found themselves back where the war started, and the war was becoming desperatly unpopular in England. It is unlikely that the war would have continued much longer even if they had managed to escape from Yorktown.
Franklin was certainly influential in France, but you also have to look at John Adams who also worked on France as well as securing loans for the government and several others.
My grandmother researched our family tree very extensively, and it turns out Ben Franklin is my great (x7) uncle. His father is my great great great great great great great grandfather. Anybody else out there related? Maybe some direct descendents, even? Considering how well he did for himself, I'd think that likely.
Without Benjamin Franklin's entreaties to the French
Just to be clear, it was the French royalty that he dealt with... a royalty that had few fans amongst the general French population.
But that's a question of whether to keep secrets, which is why we have things like the Intelligence Oversight Committees. That's not an issue. What's an issue is whether bounds were overstepped re: legality. Many things are done which require secrecy but which are legal, such as maintaining the anonymity of undercover agents... but enlisting the aid of France wasn't illegal. The need to keep secret whose calls we tap isn't under debate; the legality of it is.
You and your citation's author gloss over the gap between doing something legal which needs to be kept secret and doing something illegal and not telling anyone about it. You're both either too stupid to know the difference, or you're hoping the rest of us are.
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
Flamebait? No. It's the truth.
He first agitated for, and then actively participated in, the armed overthrow of the government, using an army of unlawful combatants backed by a rouge state.
Oh, you mean that treason is part of the Patriot act and not the constitution?
Let's not be foolish about this. Stop trying to pin this on the Patriot act, it's one of the oldest laws on the books. As for speaking out against the government, it happens everyday. I don't see people being locked away for it.
What is sad here is that I'll probably get labled as troll when the truth is Franklin would agree with me even if he supported a current day revolution. Instead the parent post got modded as insightful for simply invoking the name of an unpopular law instead of being based on fact.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Franklin Quoted by Minsky
Yes, because operational details of assistance are *exactly* the same as ignoring explicit Congressional instruction on the matter of constitutional requirements.
To use Ben Franklin to justify wiretaps! Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you no sense of decency?
1. Since there will always be terrorism, there will always be a war on terrorism, so none of these measures are temporary "wartime" measures. They are permanent.
2. The wiretapping argument is not about foreign intelligence, it is about domestic intelligence
3. FISA warrants can be obtained retroactively so arguing there may be no time is idiotic
4. Will you be as in favour as unfettered presidential power once a democrat is in power or are you just a partisan apologist hack with no principles ?
5. Ok, I admit it, 4 wasn't really a question
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
Was he really born on the 17th?
You and your citation's author gloss over the gap between doing something legal which needs to be kept secret and doing something illegal and not telling anyone about it.
Revolution is legal? Good God man, this has nothing to do with legality but rather what is right at the right time. While I doubt Franklin would support the wiretaps I don't think that the grounds of legality would have stopped him in an action he felt was correct in a certain set of circumstances.
That's the truth behind why most people find the founding fathers as giants; they opposed the wrong, broke the law doing it and in the end got away with it.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
If it wasn't for the French, you guys would be speaking British!
For a country that has a history of slavery, discrimination, violence and hate groups such as the kkk and the US government you people are sure proud of yourselves.
Find me a country without this kind of background.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
The man deserves to be on the half dollar far more than a dead Kennedy. It was a travesty that he was removed in the first place.
I've just read Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography and just wanted to say Happy Birthday, Benjamin Franklin -- the world needs more people like you.
Your "better" example also assigns the wit to his politician role. His wit was universal, not just when he was a politician. The original sentence stands fine on its own.
No, a rouge state. It's like a mascara state, or a lipstick state, except with cheekier diplomacy.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben
My favorite quote of his, and quite fitting.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
Seriously, Europe only doesn't have a history of slavery since the fall of rome because we chose instead to support slavery (of a far more barbaric sort than the Romans ever practiced) somewhere else - ie. America.
If the US has a history of blood, torture, and racial slavery it's because we, the European colonialists, took it there, and because the Americans didn't abolish it, oh, and lets not forget the East African tribes happily selling each other into slavery in order to steal each other's land.
There's more than enough blame to go around.
James P. Barrett
Seriously, Europe only doesn't have a history of slavery since the fall of rome...
What's the saying? Arbeit Macht Frei? So much for Europe not having a history of slavery since the fall of rome.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Not only that, but the list of 'talents' is not composed of talents, except for wit. 'Publisher' is not a talent. 'Politician' is not a talent.
Also, NPR doesn't say anything. How's this for a rewrite:
Franklin was a man of diverse talents, as evidenced by his success as: publisher, inventor, ambassador, politician. He possessed great wit with some human frailities.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
...when Benjamin Franklin has contributed so much more to the liberty of so many (not just in North America, but also in Europe!)
:)
Not knocking MLK, but I think his contributions pale in comparison to Franklin. I could be biased, posting from Philadelphia.
Some Ben Franklin quotes
Support the FairTax
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. -Ben
Cloud City Digital: DVD Production at its cheapest/finest
Nice sentiment, but what does it have to do with people flying hijacked airplanes into buildings? The world we live in is far different from Franklin's, and it requires a different world view. The wire tapping isn't about trading liberty for security (how has your freedom been reduced by the government listening to Bin Laden's telephone calls?), it's about monitoring the activities of our enemies. Would you have objected to the Allies listening in on calls to and from Axis leaders during WW2? Do you think Franklin would have?
The problem with God is that he thinks he's Richard Wagner
Enjoy drinking a beer that is close to what Ben would have drunk.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
From wikiquote
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, -- if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.
Speech to the Constitutional Convention (June 28, 1787)
Don't you know, when a society has made mistakes in the past it must never be allowed to redeem itself and move on. Instead, that society must feel eternal guilt and self-hate.
Maybe this explains post WWII Europe, its self hate, and - birth rates.
Please recite to me the Franklin quotes which back up your second and third assertions.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Huh?
Once the United States government starts firing on protestors and dissolves the Senate and House (leaving the states with no representation), I'll agree with your analogy.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
When asked what form of government the founding fathers had agreed upon, Franklin replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it".
Unfortunately, we have not, we have decended into a democracy, which Madison called, "the most vile form of government".
Do yourself a favor: look into the difference.
Besides, Franklin was only into publishing because it was lucrative at the time (and gave him an easy way to get his ideas out).
He started setting up other publising houses, and taking percentages of those shops' revenue expressly to make money, not to "get his ideas out." His own writings (not his essential political stuff, later in life) included what he thought would sell. He wasn't getting paid to copy his own work, he was creating work so that he could sell it. He wrote sonnets, produced his famously humorous almanac, etc., all so that he could profit from the creation and distribution of his work. Sure, he also ran off advertisements, bank documents, and anything else that someone wanted put on paper... but he actively sought out projects and personally created content so that he could win a larger paying audience for his writing. He carefully crafted his material (like the almanac) so that when people were aware that it was time for another, there would all the more people anxious to pay to own their own edition of his witty work.
Do we have loads of tales about people being legally hounded for ripping him off? No. It wasn't as convenient back then to do so. But you're making it sound like convenience in ripping off an artist (or an almanac writer) changes the ethics of the situation. That's crap, and in dealing with the concepts of copyrights in some of the country's earliest foundational documents, that was as plain back then as it is today.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I'm a Briton you insensitive clod!
Equally fitting:
"What George Washington did for us was to throw out the British, so that we wouldn't have a fat, insensitive government running our country. Nice try anyway, George."
-- D.J. on KSFO/KYA
Franklin's political opinion varied much during his relatively long life. He spearheaded the drive to end the Penn proprietorship in 1764, so I'd hardly call him a "champion of the Quaker plutocrats."
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Same difference.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
You can thank the increasing power of the judicial branch for that.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Switzerland.
Yeah, they might have questionable banking ethics, but when that's the only problem you can find with a country they're doing bloody well.
Most people in this thread like to mention his "beer = god loves us" quote, but one important part of Franklin's life was when he stuck to water and not beer.
When he moved to England and starting working at a print shop, he noticed everyone drank beer all day and spent their whole workday drunk. Franklin opted to drink nothing but water instead, and because of that he accomplished more during the day than anyone else. This is typical of Franklin.
He also taught himself to swim in a time when barely anyone swam.
who was never President of the United States.
Day being the operative word. I'm pretty sure I wasn't born in the year 1706. Would be cool if I had been and still only looked mid-20's!
No sig for you!!
Well, admitedly, people flying hijacked airplanes into buildings is less of a threat to your security than the ones Franklin faced (An army under the control of the current government looking to hang you personally); and I'd argue the threats to his freedom, pre-revolt, were lesser than the threats to ours today. So I'd agree we need a different world view; the Franklin quote is much, much, more relevant today than it was in his time.
The wiretapping certainly isn't about listening to Bin Laden's telephone calls. The wiretapping is about listening to the telephone calls of American citizens when you are not willing to even try to get a warrant, not even from a secret court that can issue warrants retro-actively, and has refused to issue them a couple times out of the hundreds they've been asked. Do you think a warrant could have been obtained for calls to the Axis leaders? Somehow I think so. The administration clearly does not think they can convince a notably sympathetic Judge (who they picked) that this wiretapping is justifiabale, even if they show him the facts. Instead, the whole country should just take their word for it. That has got to be the most obvious horse-shit I've ever heard.
By claiming he has the authority top order this wiretapping, the President is claiming that he has the authority to do anything he wants, without telling anyone, even if both Congress and the courts specifically say otherwise. What does this claim amount to other than saying "I am King."?
Yes, I think Franklin would have objected; I think he would have revolted.
Bobby Boochet's mamma invented electricity!!
Ben Franklin is the DEBBIL!!!
not live to eat.
What's that Ben? (You porky fat fuck!)
He first agitated for, and then actively participated in, the armed overthrow of the government, using an army of unlawful combatants backed by a rouge state.
Hmm. The Republicans have been telling me that it is the people in the bleu states that are treasonous.
How can a man be a patriot if he leads the violent overthrow of the rightful government of his country? The government of the time was accepted by the great majority of people in the British Empire, and by trying to undo law and order in the colonies, Franklin spurned the values of his country. If Franklin was a patriot, then Weather Underground and the SLA were patriots.
And by that point, your agreement with the aformentioned analogy will be quite meaningless.
Or get you disappeared.
Well I'll be damned... 27 years and I didn't know. Thanks slashdot.
Of course wiki says that Al Capone and Mohammed Ali were also born on this day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_17
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Along with Da Vinci, Thomas Jefferson, and Julius Caesar.
...for the serious Enquiry of learned Physicians, Chemists, &c. of this enlightened Age
If he's so smart, how come he's dead?
That, and he wrote a book on farting. No truer American hero could ever do that.
This is a perfect example of how the term Intellectual Property is complete garbage. He earned his wealth because of copyright, while dismissing patents as unjust, because he was intelligent enough to see the difference between the two.
One grants you control only over works that you create. The other grants you control over any similar work created by others. Alternately, the worst one can do with the powers granted by copyright is to hoard one's work as though it was never created. The worst one can do with the powers granted by a patent is to prevent anyone from creating any works that incorporate vague idea that you merely described.
This is a much, much greater power for the government to be handing out, and must be done with caution. Yet to date, no one has presented a workable means by which to decide who gets a patent and who doesn't. The guidelines in the law are novelty, obviousness, usefulness. Unfortunately, the last two are subjective, and the patent office has given up on them. It would take far more (experienced) man power than they have to determine the obviousness and the usefulness of a patent. Even if were to try and judge on those merits, the fact that this is an entirely subjective decision, on which rests potential revenues in the millions of dollars, guarantees that it will become unmanageable. The people making the decisions would be very susceptible to corruption, and corporations would challenge any decision they disagreed with. Those requirements, while necessary, are not practical to check. The novelty requirement is partially checked, and there are some practical ways that this checking could be improved, but it simply isn't enough. Granting patents on obvious ideas is still the root of the problem even if the idea being patented is new.
Of course it is impossible to speak for all slashdotters, but a large number are of the opinion that copyright in principle is good - it is just our implementation, in particular the drastic changes that have happened during just the last 30 years, that is flawed. Not even Richard Stallman would claim that all copyright should be revoked; he has stated on many occasions that different types of works (software, books, music, etc) need to be considered separately.
Muddling these issues together under the combined term Intellectual Property is a poor choice of words at best, and at worst it is intentionally misleading, and a staple for straw-man arguments.
Already have. I'm married to a latina. And my boss.. who is a fantastic boss.. is half African-American.
And thanks for the well-wishes. My life is far more enriched by the "diversity" in it than your white-bread (and most-likely inbred) life could ever be.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
They had been shredded by the militia down south.
Hardly. The British easily occupied New York, for instance, and didn't evacuate until after the peace treaty. They pretty much dominated the colonial forces under George Washington, except at Trenton, Princeton, and Saratoga, which was the only major victory other than Yorktown Washington achieved.
Pentiums baby!
Get your Unix fortune now!
As for speaking out against the government, it happens everyday. I don't see people being locked away for it.
You are aware that at both national political conventions for the 2004 presidential elections, protesters were literally locked inside cages. Protesting outside of such "free speech zones" was a crime, and UnAmerican, because of course Good Americans don't protest against the government.
You're right of course, the unabashedly unconstitutional abuse of Executive power by simply declaring people "unlawful combatants" and thus magically transporting them outside of both military and civil authority has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Benjamin Franklin was an absolute genius. Not only was he responsible for the rediscovery of electricity. he was also responsible for many other scientific advances of historic proportions. Not only that, he was also partly responsible for drafting the founding document of one of the greatest nations in history. Unfortunately he would mostly be fighting mad at how his genius has been misused by the main two political parties of today along with their corporate and special interest paymasters. These entities have distorted the intent to help pay for innovation with laws that has brought innovation to a standstill. Both Democrats and Republicans have destroyed the legal protections which the U.S. Constitution provided for the inhabitants of the U.S. In fact, the U.S.A. should be no longer known by that name. It is more appropriate to call it the "Police States of Amerika." With not only free speech stifled by the abuse of copyright and patents, property rights are now virtually unprotect as any major corporation can have a local government force people to give up their own land for a pittance. Things can be changed though. It has to be done by people not doing what they normally do. In order to make any significant change for the better and have laws passed that protect freedom to hack and free software, people will have to register to vote. Not only will have have to register, they will have to register under an ALTERNATIVE political party instead of the republicrats or demicans. There are many parties out there that fit the different agendas of many who are Slashdotters. These parties are listed below in alphabetical order:
Constitution Party http://www.constitutionparty.org/
Green Party http://www.greenparty.org/
Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/
Reform Party http://www.reformparty.org/
Socialist Party http://www.sp-usa.org/
Veteran's Party http://www.veteransparty.us/
Some of these parties I disagree with, however, I list them to give voice to diverse ideas. Isn't it time to register and vote for candidates based on their ideas and character instead of by which one will stand a chance of winning in order to keep out the "greater evil?" The corrupt, bullshit and lie spewing Democrats are just as bad as the corrupt bullshit and lie spewing Republicans. There are much better choices. Get behind them and support them while we have a few legal protections left.
The Republics back the overthrow of legitimate government, and so do the Democrats. Both parties are corrupt, lie spewing propaganda machines that most voters still stupidly believe in. Real change will come when people start voting for and backing the much, much less corrupt alternative parties.
The government has fired on protesters (Kent State is only one instance). Both the Senate and House have been effectively dissolved by the corporate cartels and special interest groups. The weapons used were the bridled media, political action commitee campaign contributions (bribes), the Republicans, and the Democrats. We the people have NO representation!!!
Franklin would agree with you? Does that imply that he would read /.?
I can just picture him now, sitting down in some poor mother's basement, adjusting his spectacles and reading the next dupe.
How can a man be a patriot if he leads the violent overthrow of the rightful government of his country?
A man is a patriot if he loves his country and acts to defend it.
Loyalty to the current government has nothing to do with patriotism.
It is a very, very sad thing that Americans have forgotten this.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
You're right of course, the unabashedly unconstitutional abuse of Executive power by simply declaring people "unlawful combatants" and thus magically transporting them outside of both military and civil authority has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.
What was at issue was treason. Treason is very well covered in the constitution and not the patriot act. What's so hard to understand about this?
Also, if this "unlawful combatants" standard is covered in the patriot act how is it an unconstitutional abuse of power by the executive branch? The last I seen the legislative branch is to blame for laws being passed, constitutional or not.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
As a Founding Father of the United States, he recognized the need for a REASONABLE patent and copyright system in order to make sure that authors and product creators were able to recoup the costs of creating their works. The patent and copyright system today rewards mostly corporations. Individual creators are left out. As a Founding Father of the U.S. he also stood for for individual right. This is something tht very few mainstream party affiliated politicians think about today. If we want to try to restore the protections of our right by voting, then we need to vote for members of alternative political parties such as the ones listed alphabetically below: Constitution Party http://www.constitutionparty.org/ [constitutionparty.org] Green Party http://www.greenparty.org/ [greenparty.org] Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/ [lp.org] Reform Party http://www.reformparty.org/ [reformparty.org] Socialist Party http://www.sp-usa.org/ [sp-usa.org] Veteran's Party http://www.veteransparty.us/ [veteransparty.us] Even though I am not a Christian, I prefer the Constitution Party. I can deal with looking at 10 Commandments posted in a court room, they will not jump out and shoot me. I can even stand still while leaders pray as long as I am not forced to join in. If you do not like the ideas put out by the Constitution Party, look at a party that fits what you believe in. Just don't fall for the bullshit spewed by the Democrat or Republican parties. We already know what they are about (taking bribes and serving their special interests). As another not, we can also judge the law as well as the facts. Visit http://www.fija.org/ .
Considering the very quote you're responding to ends with "has nothing to do with the Patriot Act", I'm confused as to why you seem to think I'm claiming the Patriot Act is involved?
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Maybe you should read the Patriot act before you spout such nonsense.... However, he would be horrified by it, and by the current political state of our great nation.
Actually, he probably would. We was a big time science geek in his day. He was big on free access to information (the man invented the public library you know), and would have absolutely loved the internet. He was a big lover of liberty, capitalism, good beer, women, and smoked pot on occasion (as did many Founding Fathers), wasn't a big fan of patents (refused to patent his inventions...and got screwed a few times for it, but believed that his inventions should be for the good of all and he still made very good money on them), and many other things which I'm sure Slashdottians can appreciate. I know I can, he's my favorite Founding Father!
And sadly, that's all most know about him.
Relax folks. I was joking. Or at least I tried to.
Rouge - red in French, therefore: rouge state=red state=state that voted republican in last election. Get the (attempted) joke? Maybe it was the overthrow governments part...
Last time I try to make a joke based upon misspelling.
He was a patriot to his people, the American people...who had by that time formed as a culture. His country wasn't England, his country was America....which happened to be ruled by English tyrants at the time.
Patriotism is a devotion towards one's country, and a country is made of citizens.
Remember this one thing as long as you can: you have a duty to your fellow man, not to your government. If government is hurting you, you owe them treason.
I don't get it.
Once the United States government starts firing on protestors and dissolves the Senate and House (leaving the states with no representation), I'll agree with your analogy.
Yes, because cowardly policies of appeasment worked so well against totalitarianism last century.
Much better to bury your head in the sand so long as there is something worse in history left to point to.
"Once the United States government starts firing on protestors and dissolves the Senate and House (leaving the states with no representation), I'll agree with your analogy."
Yeah, much better to wait till it happens and THEN start worrying about it.
To be clearer, Benjamin Franklin was probably one of the *first* to realize, when he was hauled before Parliament, that being an "American" meant something other than being a loyal British subject. That is, that people in the colonies could never expect truly fair equal treatment from Parliament, and that American interests would inevitably diverge from those of Britain.
Even many of those involved in the Congress that created the Declaration of Independence had great trouble thinking of themselves as American, as opposed to British subjects who had been wrongly treated by Parliament or the King.
Although what you have is a great improvement over what was posted, there's no way to put the ``human frailties'' thing in without being awkward. It should have been left out as it was in the actual NPR article.
If the poster wished to slam everything together like that then maybe he should have tried resolving the points in a tagged on ending like ``...politician, and a paradox of wit, wisdom, and human weakness''. It's still not as good as what was originally in the article. They definitely should have left it as it was.
Not only that, but seeing as how he used opium recreationally, he'd probably be imprisoned for that as well.
...for providing a link to one of Franklin's oft-overlooked treatises.
And the thought that in modern times he'd be locked up under the PATRIOT act is truly sad... ...not if you're England.
actually if the Boston Tea party or the Revolutioary Revolts had at any point failed they'd all have been: tried for treason, hung, shot, flaid and my personal favororites: Drawn/quartered and torchered for information. Saying he had 'human fralties' is an understatement he suposedly procreated with his slaves, and had a thing for tranc's and native girls. However he's still a great thinker in that he at least had ideas.
It's sad that people seem to think blowing shit up was invented in 2001. Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot, anyone?
That's not what they're doing. They're listening to the phone calls of American citizens, without the Constitutionally required warrants.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
It is amazing that such a man gets quoted by Dick Cheney on a Christmas greeting card that says:
...
"And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"
Talk about out of context
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
Why?
Of course, the existence of federal surveillance was never a secret. Does it matter from a "secrecy" perspective whether the President worked through the FISC or around it? Not even one tiny bit. Instead of explaining how du Pont's analogy is consistent or in any way relevant, Gibson takes that above statement and sweepingly concludes:
Just goes to show you can misrepresent anyone, if you try hard enough.
Happy goldfish bowl to you.
I seriously doubt the founding fathers would be happy about much that has happened within the federal government in the last 70-80 years. We've lost sight of a lot of basic reasoning that they probably took for granted. I don't see it getting better either.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Real change will come when people start voting for and backing the much, much less corrupt alternative parties.
Don't say that too loud. Too many of the blind political bashers who can't back up their claims of a current day fascist state will mod you down or make you part of their foes list because they don't have what it takes to come out fighting.
"...In 1776 he and his four colleagues on the Continental Congress's foreign affairs committee..." I'm certain that the Continental Congree didn't have any laws against aid from France, or against the Revolution for that matter. Any assertion you make regarding the legality of revolution has absolutely no bearing at all on the matter of Franklin's secrets or on the matter of Bush's secrets.
Franklin: kept French aid secret from Congress. Was getting French aid illegal? Not that anyone's aware of. And, since he was sent to France on behalf of the American Government, I kinda doubt that it was.
Bush: Authorized wiretaps on American citizens by the NSA, without warrants, in direct contravention of laws enacted to govern such wiretaps. Kept it a secret from Congress.
The best that you could say about the Franklin actions was that it set a precedent for American citizens keeping secrets from Congress - remember, Franklin was not a President at any time. His actions did not and do not set any sort of precedent for Presidents contravening the laws enacted by Congress.
Thus, saying that Franklin's activities are parallel to Bush's activities is, at best, a gross misunderstanding of the events involved... and at worst (and more likely) is a dishonest attempt to deceive and confuse the readers. There is no basis whatsoever for the contention that Franklin would have supported secret, unlawful wiretaps based on one incident in which he kept a secret. Revolution is just a red herring. And, quite frankly, to drag Franklin's name into this discussion is to do him and his works a great dishonor. He deserves better from his successors.
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
Thus, saying that Franklin's activities are parallel to Bush's activities is, at best, a gross misunderstanding of the events involved
Uh, that's not what I said at all. Thanks for misrepresenting me.
I said that Franklin would not let something being illegal stop him from doing what was right at the time. I, in no way, tried to draw a parallel between Franklin and Bush. Stop trying to draw a line that isn't there.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
"A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment." - publisher, inventor, ambassador, politician... I'm not sure how a talent for business, a talent for invention, a talent for communication, or a talent for politics would be considered not a talent.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's the usage. A "talent for invention" is not the same as "inventor." Nor is a "talent for politics" the same as "politician."
My post (and its parent) was in reference to the grammatical and usage errors in summary/article, not whether it's possible to have talents in those occupations.
By setting the structure of the sentence as a list of talents, the writer is stating that all of the members of the list belong to the class 'talents.'
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Perhaps you didn't intend to draw that parallel. Grandparent poster (A/C) and his citation certainly did, and then you jumped in and disagreed with my assertion that Franklin's revolution was legal; unfortunately, I didn't make any such assertion. You then said that Franklin's actions were admirable because he ignored the law to do what was right, which of course is exactly what grandparent poster implicitly credited Bush with doing. That could easily be seen to imply agreement with the original poster's statements; in fact, I think it suggests it rather strongly.
Perhaps your intent was not to support such a parallel; in that case, I shall apologize - honestly and abjectly - for misunderstanding your intent. You might wish to be charitable and interpret my continued discussion of the poor fit of such a comparison as being partially based on a response to your comment, and partially as a continued refutation of grandparent's comment.
I'd also suggest that if you intend to be touchy about people who misunderstand your comments, you yourself might want to take more care with understanding the comments to which you respond. I asserted that keeping the details of French aid secret from the Continental Congress was not in violation of any existing legislation (contrary to the Bush wiretapping), and you somehow interpreted that to mean that the legality of the entire revolution was the subject under discussion. As Mr. Bush is not currently involved in a revolution, I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. The topic of whether revolution is inherently legal or not would undoubtedly make for a worthwhile philosophical discussion, but I'm not really interested in being drawn into such a discussion at this time. Now, if you have any light to shed on the legality of Franklin, French aid, and not telling the Continental Congress about it, I'd be interested in continuing that line of discourse.
In light of your statement that you intended no parallel between Franklin and Bush, and the fact that your first comment's subject must then necessarily be limited to refuting an assertion that I never made nor implied... I have to wonder exactly what it was that you were trying to say.
I'd also like to note that as an American and as a lightning researcher, I hold Mr. Franklin in the highest esteem; he is not only one of the more important figures in my nation's history, he is practically THE founding father of my area of academic pursuit. Like any human being, perfection is not one of his characteristics; he is undoubtedly endowed with a (figurative) wart or two. Comparing him to W, however, strikes me as being an especially repugnant comparison. Chalk the vigor of my discussion up to that, if you will.
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
then you jumped in and disagreed with my assertion that Franklin's revolution was legal; unfortunately, I didn't make any such assertion.
Once again you're misrepresenting me. I said that Franklin would be willing to break the law and I used the revolution as an example. In no way did I imply you implied that the revolution was legal or illegal. If you're not going to take the time to read my posts please don't lash back at me for not understanding them. Please stop twisting my words to fit your arguement.
That could easily be seen to imply agreement with the original poster's statements; in fact, I think it suggests it rather strongly.
Perhaps in your mind. I don't see why you think that way. That's like me saying "at times homicide is justified" and you taking it as "kill anyone you want, what's the difference?" They're very different concept and I never did a single damn thing to draw you to that conclusion.
I'd also suggest that if you intend to be touchy about people who misunderstand your comments, you yourself might want to take more care with understanding the comments to which you respond.
If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. You've admitted that there is the chance that you may have misrepresented me but insist that I'm the one who needs to take care in the reading of a post... Please. You're the one reading something into a post that simply wasn't there.
I have to wonder exactly what it was that you were trying to say.
Stop reading bullshit into my post and you'll understand what I mean.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
If you want your meanings to be understood clearly every time, you'll need to state your points explicitly, as well as your conclusion. You either failed to or chose not to do so. With the benefit of your internal dialog, I'm sure every meaning you intended is as clear as the nose on your face. Since the rest of us don't have access to that internal dialog, we are left with the task of filling in the blanks and trying to glean your meaning from an insufficiency of words. Sometimes, we get that meaning wrong. SOMETIMES, WE APOLOGIZE FOR IT. I have no desire to twist your words into anything; what benefit to me? I (and others, I'm sure) simply failed to accurately understand exactly what you meant. Part of this is undoubtedly my fault. Part of this is equally undoubtedly your fault. Sometimes, my friend, both the pot and kettle are black.
It's clear to me that we both believe that Franklin would not have supported those wiretaps; in this, we both appear to disagree with the premise of the opinion piece excerpted and linked to by some Anonymous Coward. I'd like to point out that using the revolution as an example of Franklin's willingness to break laws assumes that 1) said aforementioned revolution was illegal - this is a matter of viewpoint; and 2) that Franklin's willingness to flout British law by revolting and founding a new nation, with a separate legal system, somehow implies that Franklin would then be as willing to break the new laws of the new nation that he, himself, had just helped found. That said, I feel that Franklin would probably have broken American law if it was necessary to do what he felt was right. I know that I would. It still is not clear to me what relevance Franklin's probable willingness to break the law under the right circumstances has to do with illegal wiretaps, since you and I both agree (at least, I think you agree - it's what you seemed to say) that Franklin would likely NOT have considered that to be right. You may have a connection that you think is obvious; however, since you have not explicitly stated it, I don't know what that connection might be.
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
said aforementioned revolution was illegal
I would think so. As long as Ben was on British lands he would have to adhere to British law. I highly doubt that the crown winked at high treason. You may take issue to the fact that they were in an oppressive environment but that does not absolve Franklin of following the law. Furthermore consider that what he supported and participated in (to some degree) was not only treason but also theft and murder for starters.
Franklin's willingness to flout British law by revolting and founding a new nation, with a separate legal system, somehow implies that Franklin would then be as willing to break the new laws of the new nation that he, himself, had just helped found.
I agree. I would like to think that he had enough fortitude to accept that there are circumstances outside of most considerations that justify illegal behavior. This is obvious by the ability of future adjustments to the laws of the US and the existence of state governments that could hold laws different of those of the federal government. I would like to think that the founding fathers understood that this is an admittance of the potential faults of their newly formed government and the need for change in the future. In this I'm sure they'd expect the occasional infraction of the law because of bad circumstance. I don't know when the concept of force majeure entered into the American legal system but this is just one example of the ability to bend the law in the favor of the common man in a bad circumstance.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.